In the Second Circuit, a substantive Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a “crime of violence” for purposes of § 924(c) under its elements (or force) clause, § 924(c)(3)(A). See United States v. Hill, 890 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2018). But a conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c), because United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (June 24, 2019), invalidated the residual clause of § 924(c)(3)(B) as unconstitutionally vague (and a conspiracy does not qualify under the elements clause).

That leaves the question of whether attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a § 924(c) crime of violence after Davis. The Second Circuit has not answered this question — i.e., whether attempted Hobbs Act robbery “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property …

The Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Barrett, 903 F.3d 166 ( 2d Cir. 2018), was vacated by the Supreme Court in a GVR order on June 28, 2019, in light of United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. __, 2019 WL 2649797. Davis held, contrary to Barrett, that the residual clause of 924(c)(3)(B) is void for vagueness. See Blog Post dated June 26, 2019.

In light of the Supreme Court’s order in Barrett, the government has acknowledged that Hobbs Act conspiracy no longer qualifies as a crime of violence under §924(c) because it does not qualify under the “force” or “elements” clause. So §924(c) convictions based on a Hobbs Act conspiracy as the predicate “crime of violence” are invalid. Unfortunately, the Second Circuit held that substantive Hobbs Act robbery  qualifies under the force clause, in United States v. Hill, 890 F.3d 51(2018).  …